Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pediatric intensivists in Canada are aware of the controversies regarding the concept of brain death (BD). DESIGN: Prospective survey. SETTING: From February to April 2004, a survey was mailed to each intensivist in the 15 pediatric intensive care units across the 8 provinces of Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four practicing pediatric intensivists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rate, conceptual reasons to explain why BD is equivalent to death, and clinical findings that exclude a diagnosis of BD. RESULTS: Of the 64 surveys, 54 (84%) were returned. When asked to choose a conceptual reason to explain why BD is equivalent to death, 26 (48%) chose a higher brain concept, 17 (31%) chose a prognosis concept, and only 19 (35%) chose a loss of integration of the organism concept. More than half the respondents answered that BD is not compatible with electroencephalographic activity, brainstem evoked potential activity, or some cerebral blood flow. More than a third of respondents answered that a brainstem with minimal microscopic damage was not compatible with BD. Of the 36 respondents who answered they were comfortable diagnosing BD because "the conceptual basis of brain death makes it equivalent to death of the patient," in their own words, only 8 (22%) used a loss of integration of organism concept, 9 (25%) used a prognosis concept, 7 (19%) used a higher brain concept, and 13 (36%) did not articulate a concept. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant confusion about the concept of BD among pediatric intensivists in Canada. The medical community should reconsider whether BD is equivalent to death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".